1999 (8) TMI 556

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... V.S. Nankani, Advocates, for the Respondents. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. Applications by the Commissioner is for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Preventive). 2. We have heard both sides. 3. Insofar as the respondents other than Assudamal Sons Pvt. Ltd. are concerned, the department s appeal seeks enhancement of penalty already imposed and impositi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from this we are informed that the goods in question have already been sold. The goods were seized on 18-11-1996, they were sold on 13-12-1996 under the provisions of Section 110(1) presumably after taking permission from the magistrate; the show cause notice which was issued on 27-7-1997 did not refer to the goods having been sold. The Commissioner s order is dated 15-10-1997. Neither the respond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ection 12 of the Act and there is no specific provision for reshipment in the Act, is outside the scope of the appeal under Section 129D. In any event the Supreme Court in similar circumstance has permitted reshipment in its judgment in Sampat Raj Dugar v. Union of India - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 163. The question of reshipment of the goods in any case would not arise since they were not available. We, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X